ESSIE SPEAKS OF MIXED BAGS

Yeap I know. Tut - tut - tut. Two mixed bags in a row. Well but come on. Who can blame me. I've been watching some amazing films these days; I really can't help it if they're all so terribly disparate. Two of our films this week are rather "contentious" - both the directors set tongues wagging on many different levels. It is my argument though that the films themselves, well... They speak for themselves don't they... And then, thrown in there just for the sci-fi / adventure fans out there, a cult classic. A cult classic I hadn't watched before actually (yes, I hang my head in shame). I sincerely hope you enjoy. And yes. I am developing an obsession with Terrance Malik. And I'm proud of it =) happy viewing, Essie

A CLASSIC TALE, AN ORIGINAL TAKE : "DAYS OF HEAVEN"

Terrance Malik seems to be more of a contentious issue than I ever thought he would be. I have had conversations at length with friends and neighbors about him, opinion seems to be quite divided. Funny I never noticed, or rather, as I had not seen anything by him, I guess the discussion did touch me at some point but I kinda didn’t notice – if that makes sense. Anyway. Opinion is divided between reckoning he’s a genius and thinking he is stuck up in the sense that he makes films literally no one can understand and what, some people ask, is the point of that? Now, I do tend to agree with people who say films should be understood. I mean what is the point of having a film so elite that no one but you knows what the heck you’re talking about? But what I don’t agree with is the idea that Terrance Malik’s films enter this category. I have now watched three out of his total output – which, I grant you, isn’t as much as some people’s – but trust me when I say Mr. Malik has gone for quality rather than quantity. I mean, if New World was good, Days of Heaven is something else altogether. And story wise, hand on heart; it is NOT hard to understand. His style might not appeal to everyone, but that is a different matter altogether. Days of Heaven takes place in the days of the Great Depression in America. Bill (played by a very young Richard Gere) is wondering round the mid-west with his girlfriend and his sister. Only they don’t want people to talk you see, so he just tells everyone his girlfriend is his sister to. Which suits them fine generally until, on one particular farm, the young, handsome owner falls in love with the girlfriend. Now Bill doesn’t think this is such a bad plan as plans go. He has reason to believe that the young owner of the farm is ill and will die within a year. In fact, this might be the making of their entire little family. The marriage happens and time goes by… But not only does the farmer not die, but other feelings start to take hold that will shake all three of them and their little family to their foundations. As you can see, the topic is pretty much universal. Two men, one woman, betrayal, all that jazz. But Malik’s style of filming takes this very classic story and turns it into something quite extraordinary. Visually speaking, we have a masterpiece here. We have said of other films that we could stop it at a random moment and we had a good chance the frame we got could be a masterpiece, yeah? Well this film takes that sensation to a whole new level. The way the story is told is stunning and poetic, the shots, the music – note especially the opening credits, I loved that way of giving feeling and exposition! I guess what one has to be careful about is the whole risk of getting caught on stylistic details and not recognizing a universal story. For me, it was completely the other way round. The story is a known one (well, when I say known that isn’t to say that Malik doesn’t give it a rather smart twist of its own) but since the story is both known and relatively simple, it gives us ample space to sit back and enjoy the visual masterpiece unfurling before our eyes. Definitely watch this film. The emotion, the visuals… Malik takes a classic love story and turns it into something quite extraordinary. Not to be missed.

REMEMBERING A CLASSIC : "ALIEN"

Ok, I know. Yet another classic. But again, it’s the first time I’ve watched it myself! So I guess, I just guess there might be a few more out there like me who missed this one. Hence I will now just scribble it down. Just in case you thought, you know “Oh another silly old sci-fi movie. Naah, I’ll pass”. NOT the right attitude. At all. Well I mean, yes it is a sci-fi film. We’re pretty much in agreement there. But it isn’t “any old” sci-fi”. It’s a bl**dy good sci-fi / adventure film. And if you’re any kind of film buff you would be a fool to miss out on, if only because it is such a good example of its kind. The Nostromo is a mining ship back from an average duty shipping ore back to planet earth from a distant planet. They are well on the way home when the ship’s main computer changes their course and re-charts it to a seemingly deserted planet from which a mysterious, indecipherable signal seems to be being transmitted. The duty of the crew is to investigate any further life forms. From the moment the crew get to the abandoned buildings on the planet, something isn’t quite right. And although, when they get back to the ship, they are fully aware of the fact that they have returned with “something”, it will take a while to realise what a dangerous “something” they are dealing with. In the limited space of the ship, the danger grows and in the middle of outer space there is simply nowhere to run… Now, in my view Alien is an interesting mix of a thriller a sci-fi and a horror film. I have to wag my finger a tiny bit at Ridley Scott at this point, if only because he seems, in my opinion, rather overly reliant on jump-scares. And I mean they are well done, but still. Too much is too much, and to my mind it gives the impression of not knowing what else to do. But Scott lets the tension build up really well. Another thing, credit where it’s due, is that he has obviously let his imagination run wild. And he has done an excellent job of the whole sci-fi side of things; considering the film is not one of the newest around (I was just reading in one of my text books in fact that a lot of the Nostromo was built largely out of old souped-up airplane parts hehe). I mean, it’s not life changing by a long shot. It’s the classic story of the monster roaming an enclosed space where our characters are trapped and get “picked off” one by one. (Oh come on, that was NOT a spoiler. Besides, I haven’t ruined ANY of the actual surprises). It’s good fun basically. Watch it. You’re in for a nail-biting time if nothing else!

"CARNAGE" IN ALL BUT THE PHYSICAL WAY

As you know, if I’m doing a mixed bag, I try and vary the contents as much as possible. You know, make it pretty much something for everyone. That’s why I was glad when this one crossed my path. I’ve always admired Polanski as an artist, even though I have to admit there is a very questionable side to him as a person. But like I’ve always said, leave that to one side and concentrate on the art, because no matter what you think of him as a person, he is one HECK of a director. A fact that he has proved once again with this film. It all starts out as a tiny incident really. Zachary and Ethan are two little boys who have a fight in the playground. It ends a bit rougher than expected, Zachary hitting Ethan in the face with a stick, resulting in Ethan losing a tooth and sustaining damage to a second tooth. The parents get together to sort this situation out; they want to be “adult” about the whole affair. But what starts off as a very civilized conversation between two – admittedly different – couples; soon takes a very strange turn. As time goes on though, it becomes obvious that it is not really so much about the differences in the couple’s lifestyles. True, Ethan’s parents - Nancy and Alan Cpwan (the legendary Kate Winslet and Christopher Waltz) are a power couple, both firmly ensconced in the business world and Zachary’s parents, Penelope and Michael Longstreet (the equally legendary Jodie Foster and John C. Reily) are the more liberal writer /artist types but this in itself is not the problem. The problem is much deeper – not between the couples but in the couples. As the tense situation continues fault lines begin to appear in the first perfectly smooth veneers and dirty laundry within both couples, along with the real faces under the masks begin to get aired. Which is when the real carnage begins… Ok, first up a technical note or two about this film. If you settle down to watch it you will very quickly pick up on the fact that it is actually adapted from a play (God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza to be precise). Thus it uses a minimal number of settings; in fact 90% of the film takes place in the Longstreet’s living room and the whole story is driven mainly by dialogue, not action. Now you may find that daunting as a film initially. But luckily the dialogue is very witty and both easy and enjoyable to follow. And plus of course there is the difference made by the actors actually delivering the lines – I mean take a look at that cast! The concentration on dialogue is, in my opinion, a good thing here because it brings so much great talent to light in the shape of the four actors. Plus, another good thing if the idea of a dialogue driven play /film daunts you is that it is not actually that long – so you don’t have that much to be scared of if you’re not used to the whole thing. But honestly, I reckon anyone with any kinda taste for cinema will enjoy this one. It is very witty, very clever, ok, admittedly it’s as dark as pitch as far as comedy goes but hey… It’s also a very good consideration on adult relationships and life. You really do not want to miss it.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF A GREAT DIRECTOR MIXED BAG

Ok, confession time. I'm in a little bit of doodah this week. My schedule is all over the shop. Oh I'm coping. Only just thought. A bit of extra responsibility is one of the causes. My being slightly overwhelmed by the large amounts of philosophy that is finding its way into my dissertation is another. However I am "keeping calm and carrying on" in true British stylee. And as allways, doodah or no doodah, I have delivered. (Note the rather thinly veiled feeling of achievement). Besides, being all planned and themed is all very well and good (I'm not being sarky, I do rather like it) but the old mixed bag is the way it all began for us, right? There is something fun, I feel, about not having a clue what may be coming next. A blog-thrill as it were. Oh please yourself, I try =)In the meanwhile, a trip to a magical land, a surreal and minimalist masterpiece and a fly on the wall type biopic are all vying for your love and attention. And all, I might add, are the works of great directors we all love and admire, so it'll be a tough one to choose from. Better go watch'em all, like I did then =) happy viewing, Essie

THE STORY OF A KILLER NOT QUITE LIKE THE REST : "GHOST DOG - THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI"

GHOST DOG For the longest time, this film had the title of “only Jim Jarmush film I haven’t watched”. Then my flat mate – who also works in / with films – watched it. It instantly rocketed to his list of favorite films ever – and it was somewhere near the top as well. Ironically enough this happened when I told him that he should watch something by Jim Jarmush – because he is pretty much my favorite director ever – and he went to the library only to find this was the only one on the shelf at that time. It took him months of recommending it – and me being very disorganized – but I finally got round to the blessed thing last night. Please note that I was nursing the remains of a rather brutal hangover at the time, and yet, I loved it. I mean, I feel that, just because of the hangover, I should watch it again, just to make sure I don’t miss something, but I doubt it. Minimal and beautiful as ever, this is Jim Jarmusch at his best, yet again. Ghost Dog (Forrest Whitaker) is a professional killer. He is not, however, like any professional killer you will have seen before. For starters he is pretty much the best at his job. He can dissolve into the night like a real ghost, getting “the job” done quickly and quietly. He is just a bit eccentric however. First of all, he only communicates by carrier pigeon. He lives, in fact, on a roof with a flock of pigeons. He lives by the code of the samurai. Guided by an ancient samurai text, he is the last unlikely member of a very ancient clan. Hired killers have, as you can imagine, rather unsavory bosses sometimes. Ghost Dog is no exception. One of these bosses is a mafia family. A mafia family that doesn’t quite realize what a sensitive balance Ghost Dog’s world is in. And when, one fateful night the balance is broken, everyone even vaguely connected knows the full wrath of the code of the samurai. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is, in fact, a samurai film set in modern (relatively) day USA. And the particular genius of this film is largely the fact that it takes many very unlikely looking couplings that actually go together so well that you don’t even stop to think how unlikely they are until later sometimes. I mean, Forrest Whitaker makes a very unlikely samurai if you stop to think about it. Yet the story goes so smoothly and Whitaker carries off the role so well that it you actually don’t stop to think about it. Or even if you do a bit at the beginning of the film you are carried away by the beauty of the film. And the film is beautiful. I call this film pure Jarmusch because someone else could take the same story and make a very gangsterish “bad boy” revenge movie of it. No. this movie, although there is one heck of a lot of bloodshed in it, is calm, beautiful in places and sprinkled liberally with Jarmush’s rather unique sense of humor, eerie parallels and wonderful cinematography. I mean, if you don’t like Jarmusch’s style you’ll probably hate it, don’t get me wrong… If you like it however… Oh you are in for a treat…

A RAMBLE IN FOREIGN LANDS : "LEGEND"

This is NOT a film I would have expected from Ridley Scott. On many levels. On one hand it is an old school fantasy with all the visual effects – or lack thereof – pertaining to its era. But to be fair, technology was a tad limited and frankly he made up for the lack of special effects, computers and whatnot in his later films. Secondly, it is a fantasy, as it’s a fairy story. Literally. Yes, Scott later made a bit more of a name for himself in the genre of historical epics but hey. A man can change his mind. No, it’s just that when I picked this one up in the library and it actually said “directed by Ridley Scott” on it, I kinda took a double take. But it had Tim Curry in it. On a smaller and slightly less important note, there was a very young Tom Cruise in it. What, I asked myself, could be the harm? I was write to gamble, as it turned out. This, boys and girls, is a “proper” good one. For this particular Legend we are transported to a magical land. A land of gnomes and fauns, of mystical forest dwellers and beautiful princesses. In this land, there is one particular princess of the name of Lilly whose beauty and goodness is known far and wide. Many would like to wed her but her heart belongs to only one person and that is Jack (Tom Cruise – and I can’t help but feel that he was rather unimaginatively named for this one but hey ho…). Now Jack is a forest dweller. But this doesn’t stop the fact that he responds completely to Lilly’s feelings. Their happiness is almost complete when suddenly, a well-meant error plunges their entire existence into jeopardy. Jack must pit himself against Darkness (Tim Curry – almost unrecognizable under the makeup but the voice gives him away)or the rule of evil will be supreme and dawn will never come again. The film has many good sides. The great imagination used in writing the story is one of them. We revel in the new world created and there are a lot of original characters to sympathize with and get excited with. There is one small problem though. If you are somehow unfamiliar with fantasy as a genre, don’t make this the first film you watch. I have seen A LOT of fantasy in my day so I know the basic “rules” of the game but the one problem I found with Legend was the utter lack of backstory. Characters and events erupt out of nowhere, willy nilly with no more than the absolute minimum of explanation required. It can get just a tad discombobulating. But once you suspend your disbelief utterly and completely and resign yourself to the fact that you will have to actually get through the film with the bare minimum of exposition required, it is fun. Tom Cruise suits his role perfectly even though he is from time to time a tad wooden (but then again that’s how I always think he is so possibly someone who usually likes him a lot would love him? I’m not sure). Tim Curry makes an absolutely terrifying Darkness and the most is made of his wonderful voice by not showing him full on right until the end thus revving up the suspense and getting us to concentrate on “the voice” (sigh). Like I said, this one has the odd shortcoming here and there. But then again, which of us don’t? Thoroughly enjoyable.

THINKING BACK ON RECENT HISTORY : "W."

When Oliver Stone, one of the directors most associated with political films – be it bios or cautionary tales, made a biography of George W. Bush, I am sure none of us was particularly surprised. I mean, if you think about it, with Stone’s anti-war record behind him and with the war going on in Iraq at the moment, I personally would have been a tad surprised if he hadn’t made one. I watched this film in a period when I was researching war films, specifically about the war in Iraq. And it surprised me – a lot. But before I go into the reasons why, let’s briefly remember the story first. Not that the story needs much in the way of remembering, in its essence. The biography of George W. Bush is now pretty well known around the world. Starting off as a trouble maker and an alcoholic, George W. Bush then found religion and rose to become the president of the United States of America. Stone’s biography takes a very close – fly on the wall, you know, re-enactment style – look at his life “behind the scenes” as it were. Stone shows us a not so public side to Bush. His relationship with his father, also a onetime president, and like any son who follows in the family business George W. Bush struggles to get out from under his father’s shadow. September 11 happens, decisions have to be made and like anyone now ex-President Bush must make tough decisions and maintain his work – life balance. The thing is, a lot more hangs in the balance in this case than with your average folk… Now this film, like I said, surprised me. Because with Oliver Stone’s track-record I would have fully expected him to “rip into” the ex-president, as it were. But no, not at all. No matter what you think of his politics, when you look at the personal side, the George W. Bush we see is not in the least bit a caricature, he is very, very human – a fact we tend to forget with a lot of public figures whether we agree with them or not. Stone has made it quite clear that he doesn’t agree with the war in Iraq – to the best of my knowledge anyway – and the view he takes of the people surrounding ex-President Bush is a tad harsh, be it Colin Powell, Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. But I almost feel that with George W. Bush Stone was trying to say “Hey. I don’t agree with you but it’s nothing personal. It’s your politics.” A mature view, and in a way one should expect nothing less from a director of Stone’s caliber. And a rare thing in our polarized times. Another point you might want to bring up is “well this is technically a bio – are you sure you can call it a war film with a clear conscience?” My answer would have to be yes. One needs to be neither a political analyst nor an expert in film studies to realize that in the case of the ex-president, he personally and his presidency is now inextricably tied to the events of September 11 and the War in Iraq. So yes, I think when talking about a war, both the decision making process that started the war and the life of a man who was the main decision maker – the president at the time of the United States no less – is well worth examining. And very pertinent. A good film in my opinion both technically and in its handling of a historic moment and its personages. Definitely worth watching.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF TWO EPICS

I had something completely different in mind for this week. Completely. Then I just happened to watch The New World by Terrance Malik. It threw me so much, affected me to such an extent that I had to tell you all about it. As in right now. The film is such a sweeping, emotional, brilliant epic, I didn't have the heart to couple it with two other random films - that would be unfair on everyone concerned - so I wasn't entirely sure of what I wanted to do with it, until I watched... Saving Private Ryan. Another sweeping epic of a completely different ilk. Just as hard hitting as The New World only in a different way. Which made me think to myself, these two have to go on the blog together. So ladies and gentlemen, from the completely original to one of the best executions of the truly classical, here are two epics that really speak for themselves. Oh, one last thing. The New World is officially my favorite love film ever. I am going to be upset if you don't like it. Just saying... happy viewing, Essie

MY FAVORITE LOVE FILM EVER : "THE NEW WORLD"

Films like this made me start this blog up. No kidding. No caricaturizing. I mean it. Watching films like this, and then wanting to shout it from the rooftops, wanting to stop random people in the street and tell them how good the film is. I didn’t get the fuss about Terrance Malik before. Well to be fair I only watched Badlands. It was impressive but nowhere near on a scale with this… This leviathan. It is all about brilliant filmmaking marrying a brilliant story here. I would have said the filmmaking has a slightly larger part but on reflection this isn’t true. Because this brilliant true story needs to be told in its original form, because we do know it quite well but rarely do we know the whole, true thing. We are talking, ladies and gents, about the true story of Pochahontas. Now, one side note. Some of you may be a little surprised at this point. Yes, Pochahontas (played by the beautiful Q'oranika Kilcher) was a real person, as was Captain Smith (played here by Colin Farrel). As was their love affair. The settlers arrived on American shores at their wits end in the early 17th century. There was sickness, mutiny and very little hope as to the establishment of the colony. Captain John Smith was a career soldier and quite high ranking it is true, but he was by no means “the boss” he is made out to be in the cartoons and the like, or so it seems. He is however instrumental in the survival of that first little colony and in the dealings with the “naturals” as they seem to be called back then. And in the course of these dealings (I refuse to give too much away) the love affair between Pochahontas, the native American princess and Captain Smith blossoms. And it is beautiful, the discovery of true love, the forest, nature, communicating without words. But what then? What later? I will leave it to you to discover that. Trust me, it is nothing like the cartoon. I have to point something out. Some of you will not like the end. No, not one little bit. But I loved it. That ending made this categorically one of my favorite films ever, and I mean ever. I cried buckets. Buckets. All I will say is I strongly believe that John Rolfe (played by Christian Bale - no, I haven’t mentioned him above, watch the film and find out) deserved what he got. He suffered and fought for that happiness, that resolution. It would be a heart-rending shame if the story had ended in any other way. The very, very end is sad of course but neither here nor there. So there. Another thing I didn’t quite get before watching this film is “poetic” filming. Poems are poems and films are films and forcing the two together does not sound like the wisest of ideas to me. Err, wrong. Very wrong. The images Malik’s camera captures, the narration that is superimposed… The originality of the work of the film from beginning to end… Words cannot describe it. Having various images on screen with an external narrator in the background may not sound like the most riveting way to go about describing emotions. “Oh” , you might say, “he did that because he couldn’t have it in the film”. Wrong. He did it because he could do that kind of thing very, very well. I can think of no better way of portraying the inner thoughts of the characters. The text they narrate is pure literature. Yes, apparently the two go very well together. I am now in the small band that cannot wait for Malik’s next film. As you may know, he goes for quality rather than quantity. But hey, obviously it is worth the wait. In the meanwhile, I shall go and root out the rest of his films. I will keep you posted, naturally.

NO INTRODUCTION NEEDED REALLY: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

This is yet another one that most of us have seen by now. And yet another one I actually caught for the first time this week. Now, I do understand if you say it’s a little too Hollywood, you know, a little too “been there, done that”. I get it. Some people don’t fancy Hollywood that much, honestly I don’t blame them. But you really cannot just go tarring the entirety of Hollywood with the same brush as it were. In the context of Hollywood films, some directors come up with really spectacular works. True, you may feel you know the story already, but maybe there is something in the film itself that will make you go for it anyway, eh? A bit like The New World written above; we do know the story of this one. It is a pleasure to watch anyway. 1944 – D Day. While the American forces are faced with the undiluted horrors of the war, the results are creating their own tragedies back home. When the armed forces realize that three of the Ryan have been killed in the war, leaving their only surviving sibling among the parachuters who were accidentally dropped behind enemy lines, there seems to be only one thing to do. Send out a search party. Find Private Ryan. Send him home. For this, Captain John Miller (the legendary Tom Hanks) Is selected and told to assemble a team. The task in hand is dangerous, in their own words they are basically looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. They are not entirely sure why they are doing this and resentment for this Private Ryan is growing without even having met the man. It will take all of Miller’s skills as a leader if he is to see this mission to completion. Like I said, this is one of those films that remind us of the sacrifices of previous generations, the price of peace as it were. The criticism this kind of film usually receives is that it glorifies war and paints the whole situation in a far more rose tinted – if you will – light than it actually is. Spielberg isn’t having any of that. The landing sequence in D Day, depicting what happened on Omaha beach back in the day is now a thing of movie legend. And Spielberg was, I am reliably informed by the many books strewn around my desk, quite aware that the sequence was hard to watch. It was, however, a matter of principal. The other good thing about the film is that the team looking for Private Ryan is very, very human. By the middle of the mission they have ceased to care about the Private at all, in fact they are pretty sure he is insufferable. Captain Miller has to keep them in line the whole time, but the thing is he is just doing his duty too; he is just as sick of the mission but also wants to get the job done. It is true there are a few romantic “bits” in it, a few classic characters thrown in for good measure but hey, it’s a sweeping epic, I think we can give it that much… In general, the depictions are quite real and down to earth. And with the subject matter to hand of course, this makes the film a hard one to watch from time to time… But hey… totally worth it. Just bring tissues.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF LADIES TO BE RECKONED WITH

Ok, I was just looking at the banner thing at the top of the website in its latest incarnation this week. It has become a brilliant incarnation of my very erratic viewing habits. And I'm sorry to say fellas it's only going to go downhill from here. I know what's coming up you see. And yes, it only gets more complicated from here. But actually wait, no, I'm not sorry. You guys are still around. You like it as much as I do. More of the same coming up, yeah! About this week. This week it's all about the ladies. I was going to call it dangerous ladies but that doesn't actually cover it at all. No, these ladies are not dangerous as long as you don't mess with them. If you do mess with them however, you better have a backup plan. Or three. There is also multiple references here; the ladies may be some of the most extraordinary characters in cinema like Thelma and Louise, a character but maybe more importantly a director such as Katheryn Bigelow and lastly a little lady who has overcome extraordinary odds with the help of her friends to inspire everyone. Like Winter. So there. That one goes out to my ladies! Happy viewing, Essie

TIME TO HIT THE ROAD WITH STYLE: "THELMA AND LOUISE"

Well, as you guys know by now, I am not a major fan of going through the big classics here on this blog. I mean, especially if we’re talking about “those” films, you know, that we all agree are unequivocally brilliant. But still, I do get back to this category from time to time. Because well, you never know, I saw a lot of the “big” classics quite late in life, maybe you’re in the same boat. Maybe you just never got round to it. Better late than never and all that jazz. So here, for your delectation is Thelma and Louise. The road movie of road movies. At the very beginning of the story, Thelma and Louise could just as well have gone absolutely nowhere. Thelma (Geena Davis) is a stay-at home wife with a rather horrible husband who harasses her and probably cheats on her. Louise, her friend, (Susan Sarandon) works as a waitress in a diner, has a long-term boyfriend but is a more independent spirit than Thelma. All the two women want is to have a girl’s weekend at a cabin they have borrowed from a friend of Louise. And things would have gone a lot smoother if Thelma had actually found the courage to ask her husband – not that he would have agreed. The end result is that when the two women drive off, Thelma has left a note taped to the microwave and they are both feeling in a very “giddy” mood, up for having some fun. The trouble is – without giving too much away – that the fun turns nasty pretty quickly and their holiday risks turning into a nightmare. They have to look deep within themselves and find unplumbed depths to both themselves and their friendship if they can ever hope to turn things around. Ok, to be fair, the director Ridley Scott is known for a rather different kind of film. You know, he is the man of epic adventures; he brought us “raaaah” moments like in Gladiator or serious, though-provoking sci-fi with Blade Runner. This is also, in a sense, an epic adventure but on a completely different scale. I was flipping through the interview the director has in the leaflet of my version of the film and Scott points out that rarely are the scripts he works on so “character based”. It is true actually. Usually Scott’s characters are, in one way or another, part of the bigger whole. True, they may be standing up to it or something but I mean, take Russell Crowe in Gladiator – the “model” soldier, standing up to the Roman Empire. Or Robin Hood – the model archer standing up to a corrupt monarch. I am not implying that all Scott’s films are the same by the way – though some do argue this - but, case in point, Thelma and Louise is different. I mean, there is the action / western in there. Really. There are shootouts, car chases all that kinda thing, the ones who have watched it know what I mean. But there is character based comedy as well. Both Sarandon and Davis are SO brilliant. I mean I have to say, the characters are a bit “type” y – there are ALWAYS two very different characters on the road movie, they are very disparate and a lot of the time one is very down to earth and organized and one is a little more scaty and “funny” – as are Thelma and Louise. But as the film progresses we see them both change and develop. And since both actresses are brilliant we see it happen realistically. We get to know them, we get to understand their backstories, why exactly they were / became this way. And the depth of character works very well for the messages the film gives about women and their situation back in the day - and we can discuss how much it has improved. But that is the topic of a whole new paper all together. In short, Scott uses some familiar tropes to make a fun and very watchable movie that also gives us some serious stuff to think about buried not to deep in the film. A definite must watch I’d say.

THE CHILL OF THE NIGHT : THE HOUR IS "NEAR DARK"

Kathryn Bigelow is a director that has begun to draw my attention more and more in the last couple of years. Her films, I have discovered are not as “one layered” as they may look to the untrained eye. I mean, she is far from being my favorite director ever, and yes, her films may well contain rather nationalistic messages on one level (I’m thinking of the Hurt Locker specifically) but her films also have depth. Which makes them actually fascinating to watch. What I have in mind for this week is her first solo feature film, made in 1987. And actually it’s quite in keeping with modern times. It’s all about vampires. Living in a small town in rural America, Caleb is a bona fide modern cowboy. He lives on the ranch with his father and his little sister and lives a pretty ordinary life until, one fateful night, he runs into Mae. And a little bit of passion leads for a lot more than Caleb has bargained for. Mae is one of a band of vampires who roam the land in stolen cars and pretty much do whatever the heck they want. Now Caleb is not too unhappy about the turn of events, he loves Mae and would, in theory quite like to spend eternity with her if it weren’t for the minor issue of having to kill people to survive. That and the whole pillaging, stealing, low moral standards bit. The “gang” is quite aware that Caleb is not one of them on so many levels and this brings his already shaky existence into even more peril. Will young love find a way out? Can Caleb carve out a place for himself among the night folk? We seem to be all about crossing different genres with Westerns today. Because in her backstage interview (yes I’m the kind of nerd who watches the extras) Bigelow openly says that her aim was to cross a Western with a horror movie. And Near Dark functions exactly in this way. I do not really mind the crossed with a western bit to be honest. Heck, it is pretty much the granddaddy of True Blood in that sense. Caleb (played by Adrian Pasdar- who I've just realised is Nathan Petrelli from Heroes. For those who watch the series) is a good, old fashioned good guy, complete with square jaw. Mae is a lovely contrast to him, thin, waif-like and pale. I have to say, there are a few tropes that have kind of got old – the child-vampire / adult stuck in a child’s body for example (I find the fascination with this trope rather odd actually. It possibly has something to do with the fact that it’s usually the reverse, a child in an adult’s body connoting immaturity but anyhow, moving on…). All in all Bigelow does something clever with the vampires, namely, she sticks to all the major rules but rewrites other stuff. I mean the end of the film is brilliant really, on the one hand it’s a rather fairy tale “solution” to the problems brought up throughout the film but on the other hand the very last scene / frame even if you look closely is a bit of critique of the solution offered. I don’t know, it’s worth watching carefully. The motley crew of vampires is made up largely of the cast of Alien (Lance Henriksen, Bil Paxton, Jeanette Goldstein for example) which, the backstage footage also confirms, gives the whole thing very much a family feel. But that is, you see, precisely as it should be. In fact the “family” feeling in the film is so well portrayed that you can’t help secretly and ever so slightly sympathizing with the “baddies”. I mean, they work so well together. Oh you know what I mean. Yes you do. I mean, we know we’re not supposed to but at the end of the day quite a few of us sympathize with the baddies deep down inside. And this is a group of baddies that is particularly easy to sympathize with. Interesting film all in all. Don’t be taken in by the ‘80s feel, give it a whirl.

AND A HEART-WARMER TO ROUND IT OFF : "DOLPHIN TALE"

Ok, so, this little lady, the hero of this real life story, is not really dangerous. She’s quite something though; she is a force to be reckoned with. Trouble is she is not actually human either. Some of you might remember the story of Winter, a dolphin in Florida. The film is inspired by her story, although I strongly suspect some of the characters are added on, the main bulk of the story – Winter’s story – is very much a reality. Sawyer is a bit of an oddball. He isn’t good at sport, he isn’t social, and he is kind of closed and quiet. He is nothing like his older cousin Kyle, a successful swimmer, now going into the army, social and outgoing. He is quite content living in a world of his own until coincidence means he runs into a dolphin, trust up in the ropes of a crab trap. She is badly injured, the rope has cut off most of the circulation to her tail and she seems to have lost the will to live. Luckily the marine hospital and aquarium are close by so the dolphin is delivered into safe hands. For Sawyer, this is a revelation. He literally cannot keep away from the marine hospital and in time becomes friends with Winter and the whole staff there including Dr. Clay and his daughter Hazel. The thing is, Winter’s injuries mean her tail has to be amputated. And with the marine hospital risking shutting down due to lack of funds, will anyone want to lend a helping hand /fin to an amputee dolphin? Now, any of you who have actually followed the story in the news pretty much knows what happens. But honestly this is not the main attraction of the film. The story itself, like I said is basically made up – not the winter bit, I strongly suspect the characters around it though. The “lost” boy finding himself through the company of an animal (Free Willy – anyone? And that’s only the latest incarnation) is by no means original. Hazel’s mother – Dr. Clay’s wife – is dead. Sawyer’s father left when he was five. Hint, hint. There is a goofy mascot running around the place (isn’t there always – a rogue pelican of all things). There is a wise grandfather, guiding the way. The two 11 year-olds – a girl and a boy – are clearly each other’s’ true love – they just don’t know it yet. The hospital WOULD be risking shutting down. And as you can probably imagine the cousin comes back from the front injured and depressed (rightly so I might add) but Winter “nurses” him back to life too. Which would be fine in itself if she already hadn’t nursed Sawyer back to life, i.e. they used the same trop twice. It works but I mean, still. Anyway, you get the picture, all the clichés of a feel good movie, and then a few. But it is a true story. The real Winter actually “acts” in it as herself so watching her is fun. And there are quite a few “aww” moments where I went a bit dewy eyed. Not least when Winter turns upside down to show the depressed and now disabled Kyle her amputated stump as if to say “Look, I’m like you”. I just welled up, I will not lie. It’s a good ‘un all in all. I mean it’s not high art. But who cares. Get a glass of wine, a box of chocolates, a couple of good friends and go “aaah” at it. It’ll go down a treat.